What 10 Studies Say About Building Muscle with High Reps (2018 Update)

Conventional wisdom has it that training with high reps and light weights builds endurance, but makes little contribution to gains in muscle mass.

Heavy weights and low reps has long been the accepted “best way” to maximize muscle growth.

Back in 2010, Stuart Phillips, a kinesiology professor at Canada’s McMaster University, began to overturn much of that conventional wisdom.

The Research

Phillips and his team found that muscle protein synthesis, a key driving force behind muscle growth, was higher with light weights and high reps (4 sets of 24 reps) than it was with heavier weights and lower reps (4 sets of 5 reps) [6].

At the time, these findings generated a lot of controversy.

They were also dismissed by many, mainly on the basis that the study looked at short-term changes in protein synthesis rather than long-term gains in muscle size.

So, Phillips set up another trial.

This time, he got a group of guys to train their legs on the leg extension machine three times a week for 10 weeks, using one of three different set and rep configurations [2]:

1 set of 10-12 reps performed to voluntary failure

3 sets of 10-12 reps performed to the point of fatigue

3 sets of 30-40 reps performed to the point of fatigue

The result?

The amount of new muscle added to both legs was almost identical. Training with lighter weights and higher reps stimulated just as much muscle growth as heavy weights and lower reps.

What’s more, the average size of both the fast and slow twitch muscle fibers increased equally with heavy and light loads, meaning that both fiber types were recruited and stimulated during training.

Untrained Beginners

Once again, this study attracted criticism, most notably because it used untrained beginners as subjects.

Take someone who’s never exercised and get them to lift weights for a few months.

They tend to grow no matter what they do.

Are you going to see the same results in guys who have been training for a few years?

To find out, Phillips recruited a group of 49 men with an average of four years lifting experience. The men were assigned to one of two groups [8]. One group did 20-25 reps per set, while group two did 8-12 reps per set.

The findings: After 12 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of muscle growth between the two groups.

As with the research in novices, the average size of both the fast and slow twitch muscle fibers increased to a similar extent in both groups.

The average amount of muscle mass gained in the high rep group was 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram), compared with 3.5 pounds (1.6 kilograms) in the low rep group.

Had the study lasted longer, or the number of subjects been larger, the difference in results between the two groups may have become large enough to cross the statistically significant threshold.

Of course, these are the results from just a few studies. As I’ve explained here, drawing conclusions about anything from two or three studies is never a good idea.

However, there’s plenty of other research out there showing multiple benefits of training with a light weight and high reps.

Light slow-speed training (55-60% of one-rep-max, 3 seconds to lift and lower the weight) has been shown to increase both muscle mass and maximal strength [3]. The results are comparable to those obtained with heavy normal-speed training (80-90% of one-rep-max, 1 second to lift and lower the weight).

Both heavy (4 sets of 8-10 reps) and light training (4 sets of 18-20 reps) activate the expression of various genes involved in muscle growth [4].

Eight weeks of training the arms with light weights (20 rep-max) and short (30 seconds) rest periods led to gains in muscle size that were no different to those seen with heavier weights (8 rep-max) and longer (3 minute) rest periods [1].

Training with lighter weights and higher reps (not to failure) also stimulates protein synthesis in connective tissue just as well as heavy training, giving it a role during injury rehabilitation to improve regeneration of connective tissue [7].

Eight weeks of training with high reps and light weights (30-40 reps per set) builds just as much muscle as low reps (8-12 reps per set) and heavy weights [10]. Using a mixed protocol, which involved switching from heavy to light every couple of weeks, failed to deliver superior results.

Super High Rep Training: How Light is Too Light?

Most of the studies we’ve looked at show similar rates of muscle growth with both low and high reps.

But what happens when you start using super high rep training? And by super high, I’m talking about 60-70 reps per set?

That was the question asked by a Brazilian research team, who took a group of 30 untrained men and got them to lift weights twice a week for 12 weeks [9].

The lifters were split into three groups. All three groups trained the biceps and quads on one side of their body with very light weights and super-high reps – 20% of their one-rep max and 60-70 reps per set.

On the other side of their body, the men used one of three different loading protocols: a high-rep protocol, where the men lifted at 40% of their one-rep max for around 30 reps per set, a moderate-rep protocol, where the men lifted at 60% of their one-rep max for 15-20 reps per set, and a low-rep protocol, where the men lifted at 80% of their maximum for 10-15 reps per set.

All three groups trained to failure, and did two exercises: the biceps curl and leg press.

At the end of 12 weeks, training with low, moderate and high reps all led to similar gains in muscle size. Higher reps and lighter weights triggered just as much muscle growth as heavier weights and lower reps.

However, it was a different story for the side of the body that was trained with super-high reps, where muscles grew at half the rate they did in the other three protocols.

In other words, while sets of 30 reps led to gains in size that were on par with sets in the 10-15 rep range, training with just 20% of your one-rep max appears to be below the threshold needed to maximize gains in muscle size.

Two Types of Muscle Growth

Some say that the type of muscle growth caused by training with lighter weights and higher reps isn’t as “good” as the muscle gained with heavier weights.

Here’s what they’re talking about.

If you could take a closer look at a slice of muscle tissue, you’d see that it’s made up of many smaller muscle fibers. Your muscles get bigger when these individual fibers become thicker, a process known as hypertrophy.

Inside each fiber are rod-like structures called myofibrils, which run parallel to one another. Myofibrils are the part of the muscle that contribute to force production.

There is also a fluid part of the muscle fiber, known as the sarcoplasm, in which the myofibrils are embedded. It’s filled with stuff – such as water, glycogen, and myoglobin – that doesn’t contribute directly to the production of muscle force.

The term myofibrillar hypertrophy refers to an increase in the volume of the myofibrils, while sarcoplasmic hypertrophy describes the expansion of the sarcoplasm.

Training with heavy weights and lower reps, on the other hand, is said to preferentially increase the rate of myofibrillar hypertrophy, leading to dense, strong, “functional” muscles.

That’s the theory, anyway. Personally, I’m not convinced.

In one of the few studies to compare the effect of high versus low repetitions on myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, low weight high reps training did increase the rate of sarcoplasmic protein synthesis to a greater extent than heavier training [6].

But, it increased the rate of myofibrillar protein synthesis too.

Interestingly enough, when it was measured 24 hours after exercise, high reps and light weights (4 sets of 24 reps) increased myofibrillar protein synthesis to a far greater extent than low reps and heavy weights (4 sets of 5 reps).

Granted, this study looked at short-term changes in protein synthesis after exercise, rather than long-term changes in muscle tissue after several months of training. We can’t assume that the former is a completely dependable way to predict the latter.

But it does paint a big question mark next to the idea that training with higher reps and lighter weights will preferentially increase sarcoplasmic rather than myofibrillar hypertrophy.

This doesn’t mean that training programs built on the sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar hypertrophy concept don’t work. Just that the way in which they’re supposed to work is probably wrong.

But there’s no convincing evidence to suggest that gains in muscle mass produced by training with lighter weights and higher repetitions comes predominantly from “non-functional” sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, while the myofibrillar component of the muscle remains the same size, or grows to a much lesser degree.

ABOUT CHRISTIAN FINN

Christian Finn holds a master's degree with distinction in exercise science, is a former personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest, and Perfect Body magazine.